9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries company within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The BIFR on its hearing dated 30-7-2001 sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme submitted by the Corporation for revival/rehabilitation of its units. It was proposed that the 11 closed units shall be transferred to newly created subsidiary company of the Corporation, and then the same shall be privatised in phased manner. The employees of these closed units were to be given an invitation to retire voluntarily. The 11 units of the Corporation were finally closed down in two phases (5 mills were closed by Government orders dated 8-9-1998 and the remaining 6 mills in the second phase by Government orders dated 12-11-1999). 2. The employees working in the Corporation are known as the Corporation employees, whereas the employees working in the industrial units are in the category of wage board employees. By Government order dated 29-1-2001, U.P. State Sugar and Cane Development Corporation Limited, was constituted as subsidiary company of the Corporation, comprising of 18 units (including all the closed units). Apart from closing down 11 units of the Corporation, 8 more units we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001]; These writ petitions have been filed by employees of Nekpur Unit at Bareilly, which were closed down w.e.f. 8-9-1998 by Government order dated 8-9-1998. All the wage board employees, including permanent and seasonal employees were offered VRS, w.e.f. 17-6-2000, which was extended upto 30-6-2001. The unit alongwith 4 other units was closed down in the first phase. Retrenchment notices dated 11-3-2002 were served individually on all the 22 employees who did not accept VRS, including 7 permanent and 15 seasonal employees. Retrenchment compensation by demand draft was sent to each of the employees individually by registered post on 24-5-2003. 6. C. ( i ) Lalit Kumar Bammi v. State of UP [Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15459 of 2002]; ( ii ) Rohtas Kumar v. State of UP [Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15781 of 2002] These writ petitions have been filed by permanent and seasonal employees of Meerut Unit of the Corporation. In Writ Petition No. 15459 of 2002, all the 70 petitioners are permanent employees and in Writ Petition No. 15782 of 2002, all the 15 petitioners are seasonal employees. The unit was closed down in the second phase along with 5 other units by Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs have filed successive writ petitions and that they have sought similar reliefs in the writ petitions included in this bunch. Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court prohibits filing of second writ petition on the same cause of action. He has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Rice Mill v. U.P. Financial Corpn. AIR 1997 All. 291. It is submitted that these writ petitions are not maintainable. Specific reference, has been made to Neeraj Sharma s case ( supra ) which according to counsel for respondents is the fourth writ petition seeking similar reliefs. Earlier a Writ Petition No. 47697 of 2000 was dismissed on 20-3-2002, and that these petitioners are also included in Writ Petition Nos. 27172 of 2001 and 24696 of 2001 in the present bunch of the writ petitions. Similarly the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 40157 of 2003, 40232 of 2003, 30695 of 2003, 30961 of 2003 and 30694 of 2003, all relating to Munderwa unit were parties in Writ Petition No. 22105 of 2001 filed by 49 employees including the present petitioners. In this writ petition, this Court did not grant any interim relief. ( b )All the petitioners have been retrenched an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermination according to him does not become effective till the preconditions are complied with. He has relied upon judgments in State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money [1976] 1 SCC 822; Narotam Chopra v. Presiding Officer 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 97; Punjab Land Development Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer [1990] 3 SCC 682 and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Prem Chand Gupta [2000] 10 SCC 115. 11. Sri Ashok Khare submits that the payment of compensation must be made simultaneously with the retrenchment notice. He has relied upon the judgments in National Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1967] 2 LLJ 23; Pepsu Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State [1968] Lab. IC 351; Rajasthan Canal Project v. Rajasthan Canal Rashtriya Mazdoor Union [1976] 2 LLJ 25 and Secretary, Kottayam District Co-operative MSU Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal [1983] 2 LLJ 225. 12. In some of these writ petitions the retrenchment notices have been stayed on the ground that these notices cannot by way of one month notice nor one month s salary was paid in due of notice. The retrenchment compensation was computed only on the length of service upto 8-4-2002 and not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintainable. This Court has time and again deprecated the practice of filing repeated writ petitions on the same cause of action, and for substantially the same reliefs. In Brij Mohan Rice Mills s case ( supra ), Division Bench of this Court raised disturbing notes on this practice, and held that repeated writ petitions on same cause of action are not main- tainable. It was open to the petitioner to amend the pending writ petition. The Writ Petition No. 12442 of 2002 is consequently dismissed. 15. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 30695 of 2003, 30961 of 2003, 30694 of 2003, 40157 of 2003 and 40232 of 2003 are the same petitioners who have earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 22105 of 2001. These employees are the employees of Munderwa unit of the Corporation. These writ petitions are also dismissed as these petitioners have already filed Writ Petition No. 22105 of 2001, which is still pending. In case they are aggrieved by retrenchment notice given to them subsequently they can amend the pending writ petition. 16. Sri B.N. Singh appearing in Man Mohan Sharma v. State of UP [Writ Petition No. 21540 of 2002] relating to Rampur unit of the Corporation, submits that the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es a workman has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the forums created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In almost similar circumstances, this Court in Balwant Singh Yadav v. State of UP [Writ Petition No. 33589 of 2001], by a judgment dated 4-9-2002 in respect of acceptance of voluntary retirement scheme offered by U.P. State Sugar Corporation held that where serious disputes of fact exists, and the matter cannot be properly decided without recording oral evidence, and in such cases the remedy of the high prerogative writ is not appropriate for settling such controversial issues of fact. 19. The next question, is the right of transfer/absorption of the petitioners in the running units. The petitioners are wage board employees, and that their services are regulated by Certified Standing Orders of the individual mills/unit. They cannot be equated with the employee of the Corporation, who can be transferred. The State Sugar Corporation has a corporate entity. Its units are owned and controlled by the Corporation. But for the purpose of service conditions of the workmen whether permanent or seasonal, these units are individual and independent establishment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n were finally closed down. By Government order dated 8-9-1998, 5 units were closed down in first phase and by a subsequent Government order dated 12-11-1999 the remaining 6 units were closed in the second phase. The Corporation had taken permission for such closure from the State Government. Once these units have been closed down under a statutory rehabilitation scheme by BIFR, and that a voluntary retirement scheme was offered to the workmen, under the rehabilitation scheme, and thereafter the workers who did not accept the VRS have been retrenched, they have no legally enforceable right to be absorbed in running units. The running units of the Corporation are separate and distinct industrial establishments. The employees of the closed units do not have right under the Certified Standing Orders or any other service conditions to be transferred to the running units. The letter of the Chairman of the Corporation dated 5-8-1998 and the Government order dated 8-9-1998 were issued before the rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR on 30-7-2001. Even otherwise, a proposal to absorb the surplus staff of the closed units cannot operate as promissory estoppel against the Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
